Some of my own thoughts, which rebut the article in parts:

1. Godot does have "barbell performance" - you can make it go fast if you drop to C++ and do low-level engine things to add new nodes, resources, etc. You can also make it go fast when you use the premade nodes without a great deal of script in between(and the nodes are, FWIW, pretty flexible and composable). What it doesn't do at present is the thing Unity users are used to, which is "fast scripting". Fast scripting still means working around the garbage collector and the overheads of going between native and a runtime. C# is a kind of flytrap for the needs of high-end games, and Unity has only seemingly surmounted the issues by doing a lot of custom engineering for their use-case. That is, you don't really code standard C# in Unity, you code Unity's C#, which is nearly as bespoken as GDScript.
2. Saying the engine is coded in a naive way is actually not as smart as it seems, because there's a maintenance cost to always doing things in exactly the most optimal way. The target for what is fastest changes every time the platform changes. As a (up until recently) relatively small project, it's overall better that the engine stay relatively easy to build and straightforward to modify, which is what it's done. The path it's taken has helped it stay "lightweight". The price of that is that sometimes it doesn't even take low-hanging fruit that would be a win for 90% of users.
3. The 3D in Godot 4 is capable of good test scenes, but everyone seems to agree that it's not really ready for production for speed reasons. Any specific point on this just backs that up. And that's disappointing in one sense, but pretty okay in others. If you need high-end graphics, Unreal will welcome you for the time being.
4. On that note, developing for console always comes with fussy limitations, at minimum just meeting TRC/TCR/lot check; that's why professional porting is a thing. Engine devs usually end up in the position of maintaining these multiple-API abstractions because it's necessary for porting. It's the same deal with the audio code, the persistent storage, the controllers, the system prompts, it just goes on and on like that. So, rewriting the rendering bindings to do things in the D3D way and not the Vulkan way is actually a bit of a whatever; it's more rendering code. It changes some assumptions about what binds to what. But it accesses the same kind of hardware, running the same kind of shaders. A lot of ports in the not-so-distant past basically had to start over because the graphics hardware lacked such a common denominator.

The author's bio says that they have been doing this as a professional for about 5 years, which, face value, actually means that they haven't seen the kinds of transitions that have taken place in the past and how widely game scope can vary. The way Godot does things has some wisdom-of-age in it, and even in its years as a proprietary engine(which you can learn something of by looking at Juan's Mobygames credits the games it was shipping were aiming for the bottom of the market in scope and hardware spec: a PSP game, a Wii game, an Android game. The luxury of small scope is that you never end up in a place where optimization is some broad problem that needs to be solved globally; it's always one specific thing that needs to be fast. Optimizing for something bigger needs production scenes to provide profiling data. It's not something you want to approach by saying "I know what the best practice is" and immediately architecting for based on a shot in the dark. Being in a space where your engine just does the simple thing every time instead means it's easy to make the changes needed to ship.

Arch is always "latest and greatest" for every package, including the kernel. It lets you tinker, and it's always up to date. However, a rolling release introduces more ways to break your system - things start conflicting under the hood in ways that you weren't aware of, configurations that worked don't any longer, etc.

This is in contrast to everything built on Debian, which Mint is one example of - Mint adds a bunch of conveniences on top, but the underlying "how it all fits together" is still Debian. What Debian does is to set a target for stable releases and ship a complete set of known-stable packages. This makes it great for set and forget uses, servers that you want to just work and such. And it was very important back in the 90's when it was hard to get Internet connectivity. But it also means that it stays behind the curve with application software releases, by periods of months to a year+. And the original workaround to that is "just add this other package repository" which, like Arch, can eventually break your system by accident.

But neither disadvantage is as much of a problem now as it used to be. More of the software is relatively stable, and the stuff you need to have the absolute latest for, you can often find as a flatpak, snap, or appimage - formats that are more self-contained and don't rely on the dependencies that you have installed, just "download and run."

Most popular distros now are Arch or Debian flavored - same system, different veneer. Debian itself has become a better option for desktop in recent years just because of improvements to the installer.

I've been using Solus 4.4 lately, which has its own rolling-release package system. Less software, but the experience is tightly designed for desktop, and doesn't push me to open terminals to do things like the more classical Unix designs that guide Arch and Debian. The problem both of those face as desktops is that they assume up-front that you may only have a terminal, so the "correct way" of doing everything tends to start and end with the terminal, and the desktop is kind of glued on and works for some things but not others.

My principle of "blockchain's fundamental value" is simply this: A blockchain that secures valuable information is valuable.

To break that down further:

• "Valuable information" isn't data - it's something that you can interpret, that has meaning and power to affect your actions. So, price speculation taking place on a chain isn't that valuable in a broad, utilitarian sense, but something like encyclopedic knowledge, historical records, and the like might be. The sense of "this is real" vs "this is Monopoly money" is related to the information quality.
• "Secures" means that we have some idea of where the information came from, who can access it, and whether it's been altered or tampered. Most blockchains follow the Bitcoin model and are fully public ledgers, storing everything - and just within that model(leaving aside Monero etc.) there are positive applications, but "automatically secure" is all dependent on what application you're aiming for.

You don't need to include tokens, trading, finance, or the specific method of security, to arrive at this idea of what a blockchain does, but having them involved addresses - though maybe without concretely solving - the question of paying upkeep costs, a problem that has always dogged open, distributed projects in the past. If the whole chain becomes more valuable because one person contributes something to it, then you have a positive feedback loop in which a culture of remixing and tipping is good. It tends to get undercut by "what if I made scam tokens and bribed an exchange to list them", the maxi- "we will rule the world" cultures of Bitcoin and Ethereum, or the cynical "VC-backed corporate blockchains", but the public alt chains that are a bit out of the spotlight with longer histories, stuff like Tezos and NEM/Symbol, tend to have a more visible sense of purpose in this direction - they need to make a myth about themselves, and the myth turns into information by chance and persistence.

What tends to break people's brains - both the maxis, and people who are rabidly anti-crypto - is that securing on-chain value in this way also isn't a case of "public" vs "private" goods. It's more akin to "commons" vs "enclosed" spaces, which is an older notion that hasn't been felt in our political lives in centuries, because the partnership of nation-states and capital has been so strong as a societal coordinating force - the state says where the capital should go, the people that follow that lead and build out an empire get rewarded. The commons is, in essence, the voice in the back of your mind asking, "Why are you in the rat race? Do you really need an empire?" And this technology is stating that, clearly and patiently: making a common space better is another way to live.

And so there is a huge amount of spam around "ownership", but ownership itself isn't really a factor. That's just another kind of information that the technology is geared towards storing. The social contract is more along the lines that if you are doing good for a chain and taking few risks, a modest, livable amount of credit is likely to flow to you in time. Everyone making "plays" and getting burned is trying to gamble with it, or to advance empire-building goals in a basically hostile environment that will patch you out of the flow of information.

Eugen is not the person I would trust for good judgment on this because his agenda has always been user growth-centric, so a Fediverse that resembles Facebook would just be a "yay" moment for him - either way he can still end up with a career by leveraging his role with ActivityPub.

That said, I don't believe EEE works here, because AP evolved in an environment that already had to compete like-for-like with corporate options. You'll still log in for the rest of the fediverse if it brings you better content than Threads...

...and it has an edge on that, because these spaces are not designed around herding around industrial quantities of users. They have a natural size at which moderators shrug and close the gates if a big instance is too troublesome, because it hurts the quality of the experience for their own users. This peeves instance admins who want the power fantasy of "owning" a lot of low-quality users, but it also basically guarantees defederation with corporate social, because it's never been able to handle its own moderation problem other than in a "pass-the-buck" way.

The Market street tram line runs a variety of vintage cars from various different places and eras. It's a kind of "living museum" piece that complements the better-known cable cars.

I have no plans to support p92 precisely because it's going to "push" users together as a commodity. What Meta has jurisdiction over is not its communities but rows of data - in the same way that Reddit's admins have conflicted with its mods, it is inherently not organized in such a way that it can properly represent any specific community or their actions.

So the cost-benefit from the side of extant fedi is very poor: it won't operate in a standard way, because it can't, and the quality of each additional user won't be particularly worth the pain - most of them will just be confused by being presented with a new space, and if the nature of it is hidden from them it will become an endless misunderstanding.

If a community using a siloed platform wants to federate, that should be a self-determined thing and they should front the effort to remain on a similar footing to other federated communities. The idea that either side here inherently wants to connect and just "needs a helping hand" is just wrong.

Not dead, just sleeping. It's a tougher, higher interest-rate market which cuts out a lot of the gambling behavior. I remain invested but my principle has shifted away from the financial and trad-economic terms to this:

Blockchains are valuable where they secure valuable information. Therefore, if a blockchain adds more valuable information, it becomes more valuable.

And that's it. You don't have to introduce markets and trading to make the point, but it positions those elements in a supporting role, and gets at one of the most pressing issues of today: where should our sources of truth online start? Blockchains can't solve the problems of false sensation, reasoning or belief, but they fill in certain technical gaps where we currently rely on handing over custody to someone's database and hoping nothing happens or they're too big to fail. It's just a matter of aligning the applications towards the role of public good, and the air is clear for that right now.

The secret to commenting fearlessly is to not read your replies. Most reply-thread conversations are people aggressively talking to themselves to feel like winners. The alternative to engaging like that is to embrace the tendency to self-talk, turn a sensitive thread into an essay prompt for yourself, and don't look back, unless you really feel like getting in an argument that day.

Sometimes you miss good faith engagement that way, but if it's important to keep that, you can add another point of contact.

Coming soon: rebranding /r/piracy to "pirate cosplay"

What always helped centralized social was an environment of rapid growth. For the majority of people there wasn't a "before" to compare to whatever they signed up to, so a play like the one Reddit made, which isn't about the quality of the content but "whatever gets people in the door", worked - focusing all your energy on hypergrowth was the Web 2.0 strategy. But my own "before" goes back to browsing Usenet over a dial-up shell account(terminal access only). The technology used then was primarily characterized by being efficient to store and process, which led to a federated model that shared text threads.

The reason people switched from Usenet to early web forums was also a combination of not having a "before", plus some new conveniences. Usenet moderation tools were very limited, ensuring that spam and derangement were common. Because the design was made just for text, you didn't have image-focused content, but you also didn't experience the things images get moderated for now - you could post a UU-encoded file that contained an image, or a link to an image, but you couldn't shove it in people's face. And tree quoting replies was normalized, if rather disorganized - long-running threads often got "forked".

The model of web forums that became most popular - flat topic threads, more images, centralized moderation - caused as many issues as it solved. Flat threading with no post ranking makes people reply "first" at the top of the thread, images create a whole attack surface, and centralized mods have more power to trip on. But they could provide a better experience along the narrow set of things they wanted the forum to be about, and that made all the difference. That's how the centralized model works. When I think of places like Something Awful or Newgrounds in their original heyday - it's really gatekeepy stuff. There were tastemakers and you followed their lead or else.

Reddit started with a lot of link aggregation, which was also Digg's thing - that model "pushes" more content than a regular forum, so it helps build broad-audience engagement. But Reddit added more Usenet-like elements, and those gradually took over a lot of the niches as more people started using Reddit to ask questions and make statements addressing a specific community.

Something that I think defines the federated space is that there is less "push". The power is more distributed, fewer gates to keep. Reddit represented those values for a while, and now it obviously doesn't, so the users who were there for that are going to drift this way very quickly.

Part of what propelled Digg to stardom was the desire for a central "town square" that didn't yet exist in the 2000's, Web-centric internet. (never mind that Usenet existed - it didn't have a lot of the conveniences of web forums and had gotten overrun with spam, so it just wasn't part of the discussion). There were a few larger, topic-centric sites like Slashdot, Something Awful, Fark, Newgrounds, etc. These older sites had various limits on user submissions and barriers to entry, in part because it was out of their scope to try to do more than that.

Digg hit on the combination of user-submitted content, simple voting interface, and secret algorithm that has defined most of Web 2.0 - but spam, moderation and power users were always an issue, and the best answer anyone seems to have had to it is "decentralize more", which Reddit did some of by splitting things out into topical feeds again, but unifying the login and access to all of them and letting users self-appoint as moderators - in essence, give power users their own fiefdoms to keep the peace. Twitter likewise absorbed some Digg users because it relied a lot on user self-moderation of their feed. Other platforms went down the path of having the algorithm do more of the moderation and becoming more TV-like, which is more profitable but volatile since that makes the platform blameworthy for everything that slips through.

So, what I feel has happened since is mostly intensification brought on by being for-profit and taking investment capital, unlike some of those older sites which are still around and kicking. It's hard to resist changing your business model towards profit maximization when you've taken a lot of investment. But then, the useful service that Reddit was providing when it launched is a commodity now, and with federated social media, the power dynamics are even more diffused.

But every time this happens, there are people who want to stay behind, and that's because power dynamics aren't uniformly agreed upon. Some people don't want it to be objectively challenging to hold power, they just want a game they can win.

It's a recurring fediverse issue - Mastodon has it too. Basically, there are levels of blocking at various points in the hierarchy and you block or get blocked to your tolerance zone. This means that certain norms get squashed(and there are some reasonable concerns about who this helps), but it also tends to self-moderate to the conversations people want to engage with. The "invasive free-speech" instances of Mastodon tend to end up isolated, but it can also be hard to get situated and find an instance and follows you're happy with.

Something I'm looking forward to with the forum model being added to the mix is a greater ability to browse for organized discussions.